Agenda of Henderson-Massey Local Board

1 Welcome/karakia

2 Apologies

Apologies for absence have been received from Member Paula Bold-Wilson and Member Will Flavell.

3 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

The following are declared interests of elected members of the Henderson-Massey local board:

BOARD MEMBER	ORGANISATION	POSITION	Updated
Shane Henderson (Chairman)	Waitakere Licensing Trust Waitakere Badminton	Elected Member Patron	13 December 2016
Peter Chan, JP (Deputy Chairman)	Cantonese Opera Society of NZ Asian Leaders Forum NZ-Hong Kong Business Association NZ-China Business Association Auckland Chinese Environment Protection Association (ACEPA) Whau Coastal Walkway Trust Auckland Asian Association	Member Member Member Member Advisor Trustee President	15 Nov 2016 21 Feb 2017
Brenda Brady, JP	Safer West Community Trust District Licensing Committee	Trustee Member	15 Nov 2016
Matt Grey	Zeal	CEO	15 Nov 2016 21 March 2017
Paula Bold-Wilson	Community Waitakere Henderson Budgeting Services Unitec Institute of Technology	Board member Board member Employee	15 Nov 2016 21 March 2017
Vanessa Neeson, JP	Village Green Quilters Ranui Advisory Group	Member Chairperson	15 Nov 2016 17 February 2017
Warren Flaunty, QSM	Westgate Pharmacy NorSGA Properties Westgate Pharmacy Ltd The Trusts Community Foundation Ltd Life North West Pharmacy Waitemata District Health Board Waitakere Licensing Trust Massey Birdwood Settlers Ass. Taupaki Residents & Ratepayers Ass.	Contractor Director Director Director Director Elected Member Elected Member Member Member	15 Nov 2016
Will Flavell	Te Atatū Tennis Club Asia New Zealand Leadership Network Rutherford College Waitākere Literacy Board	Member Member Employee Board Member	15 Nov 2016

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 17 October 2017, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

6 Acknowledgements

At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.

7 Ward Councillor’s Update

Ward Councillors are given an opportunity to address the board on regional issues impacting the board.

8 Deputations

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Henderson-Massey Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

8.1 Deputation: Ranui Action Project

Purpose

1. To update the Henderson Massey Local Board about the extension of activities provided by Ranui Action Project and the extension plans underway to make RAP House fit for purpose for the future

Executive summary

2. Ranui Action Project has a freehold property located in the heart of Ranui. This premises not only houses a range of services that RAP provides such as a free legal advice and career clinics but also provides space for LabTests, Ranui 135 and the Community Policing Team drop in sessions.

3. RAP House has become a safe and comfortable place for the increasing number of local youth who ‘drop in’ for mentoring and support. Two new initiatives, the Connecting Community and Education project, and the delivery of a much needed learner drivers licence programme has further boosted house usage. RAP also hosts groups that include the Westernpark Village Steering Group, Man Up programme and the local Maori Women’s Welfare League. The prime location makes these services readily accessible to Ranui residents.

4. With the organisation’s growth, RAP now requires extension and renovation. We have persevered trying to accommodate community needs but it is now time to better respond to this need. We have therefore embarked on an extension and renovation project. To get the project off the ground we managed to get the architectural concept plans drawn up by Waitakere Architects Ltd, on a pro bono basis. We now need $8,950 to complete the following work and to finalise costings. Then we can apply for external funding (architect first estimate $359,420.00)

a) Land Surveyor fees $1400

b) Asbestos Report $ 550

c) Architect fees $7000 (shortfall to first payment required to progress plans)

5. This is to bring HMLB Board’s attention of our new direction and if at any stage you think it would be appropriate to contribute, this would be greatly appreciated.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Hinemoa Key and Carol Glamuzina representatives of Ranui Action Project with regards to pressures on current venue.

Attachments

a Presentation from Ranui Action Group................................................ 315

8.2 Deputation: Age Concern Auckland – Ageing A growing Reality

Purpose

1. To provide an overview of Age Concern Auckland, Our services, Issues and Trends observed in the last year, with a focus on how we envisage working with the local board to empower vulnerable older Aucklanders.

2. Local Board Engagement- areas we would like to work on with the local board, specifically to support lonely, isolated and vulnerable over 65s.

Executive summary

3. Most over 65s in Auckland are fine. They are engaged in society and living fulfilled lives. However, almost 20,000 Aucklanders aged over 65 are lonely and isolated. Loneliness and isolation confers vulnerability, and if not combated early on, can create environments that enable elder abuse. The council and local boards invest significantly in activities and infrastructure to support over 65s, however, most of this is aimed at those who are already engaged. We would like to highlight ways in which those vulnerable can be empowered. Additionally, we would like to highlight the occurrence of Elder Abuse, Loneliness and isolation across the population, to create a sense of responsibility and action. We are planning a few projects towards these outcomes, and will touch on these during the presentation.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Kevin Lamb, CEO, Age Concern Auckland.

Attachments

a Presentation from Age concern........................................................... 335

9 Public Forum

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

At the close of the agenda 2 requests for public forum had been received.

10 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

11 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Henderson-Massey Local Board

21 November 2017

Chairperson's report

File No.: CP2017/23892

Whare In Henderson Officially Opens

1. I think last Friday was one of the most important days for Henderson’s future, and really a historic one too. I attended the opening of “the Whare” on Smythe Rd across the road from the local board office, a building to serve the homeless community in Henderson. It is a place where our homeless can learn skills, connect with services and find a sense of belonging here. It was a beautiful opening, and an honour to attend.

2. We fight for growth in Henderson and a future for this centre. The traditional capital, the heartland of the West, we devote a lot of our time on this Board as members to try and get growth, public amenity and jobs back here. We cannot succeed if we don’t take everyone with us. We need our most vulnerable alongside us, to help them, or there’s no point to it all.

3. I want to express my sincere appreciation for Grant Wilson, Te Whanau o Waipareirareira Trust, the owner of the Whare, and everyone else involved in this beautiful initiative, that will change lives in Henderson. They are always looking for ideas and support to help the homeless population in Henderson, so do get in touch with them if you are keen to chip in.

Incubator Kitchen Giving Westies A Start In Henderson

4. We are proud to celebrate the arrival of an incubator kitchen to Henderson, as a pilot project supported by the Local Board and delivered by Panuku. This will give people a start in the hospitality industry, helping people with their cooking skills and business management as well.

5. Food is an often overlooked element to making a city great. When we think of many popular cities, the existence of stunning cuisine is inseparable from the experience. In the West, we see a huge opportunity to ignite the passions of our residents that have skills, or an idea, and need a little help. We can’t wait to see what can be done.

6. Panuku will be accepting expressions of interest from community members in West Auckland keen to give it a go, and if you are interested then get in touch with me and I’ll steer you in the right direction. Henderson has always been a place to get your start, to get an opportunity, and this will be a stunning example of that pioneering spirit for years to come.

Urban Tree Cover and Heritage Issues

7. I met with a representative from the Tree Council recently, who explained the worsening situation of our heritage and special trees, and what this will mean for our future in Auckland.

8. The Resource Management Act was changed in the last term of central government, and protections around trees were removed. Since this relaxation in the rules, data suggests that up to 1/3rd of our heritage trees have faced the chop.

9. Tree cover in Henderson-Massey now sits at a lowly 16% as it is, one of the lowest in the region. While our urban character relative to other Boards must be acknowledged, we do consider that a worsening of the situation would have a real impact on our area and the whole city. Trees are our lungs, they help keep carbon emissions down, keep our air clean and even contribute to a lowering of the temperature, which has flow-on positive effects. Auckland cannot afford to treat this lightly, retrofitting infrastructure later to deal with the issues of a lack of tree cover could sink our finances into the mire.

10. We are encouraged by potential policy changes to slow the decline, but perhaps it is time for our Board to discuss further how we can help our tree cover, our heritage trees in particular, and our environment in general.

Sports In Lincoln North And Ranui

11. Don’t Te Whanau o Waipareira know how to put on some fantastic events? I had the immense pleasure of popping along the Wai Youth Challenge sports day held at the Trusts Stadium and Douglas Field in Lincoln North. The sheer amount of young people competing that day and having a good time, it was marvelous. Sport truly is a uniter of people, and the good positive vibes of the day was a reminder of that principle. Long may it continue, and thanks for all the work Te Whanau o Waipareira

12. Speaking of good news, Physical Disability Rugby League was on show at the Ranui Domain last weekend, and I managed to come along to the prizegiving and meet the wonderful people involved. NZ hosted teams from New South Wales (and got the win as well, just quietly), and we really appreciated their visit. International sporting events right here in Ranui, and so inspiring as well, isn’t that something? Cheers Sandra and team.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) receive the Chairperson’s report.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Shane Henderson – Chairman, Henderson-Massey Local Board
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

21 November 2017

Auckland Transport Update - November 2017 to the Henderson-Massey Local Board

File No.: CP2017/20840

Purpose

1. To provide a monthly update to the board on local and regional transport matters.

Executive summary

2. This report provides an update on the current status of the Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund and responds to resolutions and requests on transport-related matters. It provides a summary of consultation material sent to the Local Board and provides regional information on matters of specific application and interest to the Henderson-Massey Local Board and its community.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) receives the Auckland Transport update November 2017.

Comments

Strategic Alignment

3. Auckland Transport is supporting the Local Board initiatives and delivering on its Statement of Intent strategic themes. Five strategic themes guide Auckland Transport’s decisions and actions and are aimed at providing an accessible, integrated, efficient and innovative transport system. They are also critical to the realisation of Auckland Council’s vision for transport as expressed in Chapter 13 of the Auckland Plan.

4. The five strategic themes endorsed by Auckland Transport Board are:

· Prioritise rapid, high frequency public transport

· Continually transform and elevate customer experience

· Build network optimisation and resilience for travel times

· Enable quality urban growth to meet demand

· Fast-track creative, innovative and efficient transport services.

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) Update

5. The Henderson-Massey Local Board’s annual funding allocation under the LBTCF is currently $810,647 pa. Future budgets will have an adjustment for inflation added. The following tables note previous decisions and progress since the last update, budgets and financial commitments. The table immediately below is an update of progress on the Board’s current projects:

Project

Description

Current Status

Raise existing zebra crossing onto a platform at 126 Rathgar Road

It is proposed to raise the existing zebra crossing onto a raised platform for the visibility of this facility to approaching drivers and to reduce vehicle speeds at this location.

The Local Board at its September 2017 meeting approved the sum of $160,000.00 from their Local Board Transport Fund to start the process of AT to raise the existing zebra crossing onto a platform at 126 Rathgar Road. The timeline is in the process of being completed and was not confirmed at the time of writing this update. I will present that in my next report.

Henderson-Massey Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary
Total Funds Available in current political term	$4,623,969
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$1,680,349
Remaining Budget left	$2,943,620

Consultation Documents on Proposed Safety Improvements

6. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Henderson-Massey Local Board for its feedback. The material below is included for general information purposes only:

· Safety at the School Gate project

· Pomaria Road - Resolution of Road Marking Changes

· Seymour Road, Benita Place & Rosandich Drive, Sunnyvale - Minor intersection improvements.

Investigation And Responses To The Local Board On Requests On Transport-Related Matters

Walkway on Alan Avenue Reserve

7. A request has come through the Local Board for Auckland Transport to investigate the damaged walkway on Alan Avenue Reserve.

Update

8. This matter has been referred on to Auckland Council Parks for investigation. We have asked that they report their response directly to the Local Board.

Vodanovich Road Intersection

9. Auckland Transport have completed data collection and analysis at this intersection, which includes video monitoring of vehicle movements. We are currently investigating options to improve safety at this intersection and develop preliminary designs. We will be in a position to finalise our preferred option for investigation by mid-October. We will be in a position to consult the Local Board and residents only after we have finalised our preferred option which could include requesting an independent Road Safety Audit. Any construction would be expected to occur in the 2018/19 financial year.

Westgate Drive Speed Issues

10. A request has come through the Local Board for Auckland Transport to investigate the speed on Westgate Drive.

Response

11. Westgate Drive is classified as a Collector Road and a bus route, with the intended purpose of leading traffic between Local Roads and major Arterial routes. This type of road is expected to receive greater amounts of traffic than a local road, and installing speed humps would affect the capacity and level of service on this route, and result in on-going maintenance costs due to the high stress the speed hump would endure. For this reason, we are unable to justify installing speed humps; although as speed cushions are more suited to higher traffic volumes and bus routes these could be considered in the future.

12. While Westgate Drive is not eligible for immediate changes AT have added it to our ranked list of sites to await future speed calming treatment. This programme of work is subject to an annual reprioritisation of projects for delivery within the allocated resources and funding. Also, Westgate Drive still has a large number of developments to be completed. Continuous construction vehicles will likely damage any devices installed in the near future and as a result, any traffic calming devices will need to be installed as and when developments are progressively established. Auckland Transport is working with developers to ensure that appropriate traffic calming measures are incorporated in subdivision layouts.

Soljan Drive

13. A request has come through the Local Board for Auckland Transport to investigate the signage on Soljan Drive.

Response

14. Auckland Transport has look into this matter and there is a missing street sign on Universal Drive which AT have arranged to be replaced. We can confirm that all other accesses to Soljan Drive have street signs.

Tripping Accident In Te Atatu Town Centre

15. Auckland Transport, AC Parks along with the Local Board will be attending a site meeting to resolve the safety of footpaths in the Te Atatu Town Centre in November.

Parking Restrictions for both Jammen Drive and Mantra Road, Massey

16. A request has come through the Local Board for Auckland Transport to investigate parking restrictions on Mantra Road, Massey.

Response

17. Mantra Road and Jammen Drive are public roads and the public road reserve is not reserved for people who reside on your street. It has been decided that due to a lack of parking availability on Jammen Road that restrictions were required on these roads.

18. Auckland Transport cannot guarantee on-street parking for all road users, including those residents who do not have enough on-site parking. The obligation to check that there is adequate parking for the family vehicles sits with the residents.

19. Auckland Transport ceased using ‘Residents Only’ type parking restrictions in 2007 because this restriction reserves the public road reserve for the exclusive use of an individual which is not permitted.

20. Auckland Transport issues a small number of Resident Exemption permits which authorise exclusive parking of specified motor vehicles owned by local residents in a road or part of a road that are valid and effective on the time and street or area specified on the permits.

21. The eligibility criteria for these permits is:

· a single unit dwelling is a stand-alone dwelling unit, with single title or a cross lease title with no off-street parking

· a resident who resides in a multi-unit dwelling that is a scheduled historic building or located in a conservation area as defined in Auckland City's District Plan, or any cross-lease or multi-unit dwellings established as part of the original subdivision prior to 1920 and without off-street parking

· where an alternative designated street is, for all intents and purpose, the primary street access for a particular property and not the street address (such as a corner site or rear access site), then the owner of the property may request that the permit be issued for the alternative street

· where the demand for on-street parking by eligible households exceeds the availability of on-street parking space, the allocation of exemption permits will be prioritised as set out in section 9.3.1

· no more resident only parking permits will be issued (unless there are exceptional circumstances). Existing residents only permits are valid and the current permits are not transferable and cease to be effective once the permit holders move out of the subject property.

Plaque for Jim Bagnall/McKenzie

22. There has been a request for the memorial plaque to be fixed on the block wall opposite Waitakere Court for Jim Bagnall/McKenzie.

Update

23. Auckland Transport has logged a request for this to be actioned.

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) Report

24. Decisions of the TCC over the month of October 2017 affecting the Henderson-Massey Local Board area are shown below:

Rathgar Road, Larissa Avenue, Harrington Road	Henderson	No Stopping at All Times, Road Hump, Traffic Island, No Passing, Give-Way Control, Stop Control, Removal of Bus Stop, Removal of Bus Shelter
Railside Avenue, Dora Street, Catherine Street	Henderson	Lane Arrow Markings, Cycle Lane, No Stopping At All Times, Angle Parking, Bus Only Parking, Traffic Island, Pedestrian Crossing, Give-Way Control, Flush Median, Shoulder Marking

Transport Officers Begin Work On Western Line Trains

25. Transport Officers began working on Auckland’s Western Line trains and the new role will provide customer support as well as improved safety on trains. Transport Officers will be working in pairs and they will be deployed when and where they are needed most.

26. Once the rollout is completed (subject to consultation) it is proposed to have almost 230 Transport Officers warranted by the New Zealand Police working across the Network.

27. The introduction of Transport Officers will give our customers more assurance on trains and around stations that they will be safe. The placement of Transport Officers can be tailored to when and where they are needed most, which makes the service not only more robust but also more efficient

28. As part of the SaFE (Safety and Fare Enforcement) programme run by Auckland Transport and Transdev, the new staff will provide customer service and manage fare evasion through fare inspections and issuing infringements. They will also be trained in how to de-escalate situations caused by anti-social behaviour.

29. There is also an electronic gating programme being rolled out as part of the SaFE programme which involves installing new electronic gates at eight stations across the network. The gates mean that in order to access the station’s platform, passengers have to buy a paper ticket or tag on with their AT HOP card. This means more than 90 percent of passengers will travel through as gated station as part of their journey.

30. So far Henderson and Otahuhu have been finished and coming up they will be installed at Manurewa, Papatoetoe, Parnell, Middlemore, Glen Innes and Papakura.

Henderson/Massey Quarterly Report for the period - July to September 2017

31. The following reports are attached to this monthly report:

· Attachment A - report from Auckland Transport departments on their activities in the Henderson/Massey Local Board area and regionally over the last quarter

· Attachment B - report on Travelwise Schools activities in the Henderson/Massey Local Board area over the last quarter.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

32. The Board’s views will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Māori impact statement

33. No specific issues with regard to impacts on Maori are triggered by this report and any engagement with Maori will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Implementation

34. All proposed schemes are subject to prioritisation, funding and consultation.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Transport activities over the July - September 2017 Quarter	17
b ⇩	Henderson Massey Local Board Report - School Community Transport	31

Signatories

Authors

Owena Schuster, Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

21 November 2017

Amendment of the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 and its impact on local parks

File No.: CP2017/23316

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to:

· update the Henderson-Massey Local Board on the changes to the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw; and

· propose a nine week time restriction on public election sign sites.

Executive summary

2. On 1 August 2017 the Auckland Transport Board amended the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 (“the Bylaw”) which removed the nine week time restriction on the display of election signs. This change came about due to concerns that the time restrictions may limit the right to freedom of expression in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“BoRA”).

3. Due to the Bylaw amendment, public sites, including those in local parks and reserves, can now be used for election signs for longer than nine weeks. Signs must relate to a specific election, and must be removed prior to the day of the election. However, there is no limit on the length of time that they can be erected prior to the election.

4. Under section 14 (freedom of expression) of the BoRA everyone has the right to freedom of expression. Under section 5 (justified limitations) of the BoRA the rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

5. Local boards must balance the need to provide adequate advertising locations to allow the democratic process to run smoothly, while ensuring that parks and reserves are not overly encumbered with election signage.

6. Election signs restrict the public use of parks, have an impact on amenity and create potential safety issues. Increasing the amount of time that election signs can be erected for will lead to additional compliance and maintenance costs.

7. Staff recommend that local boards limit the time period for election signs on parks and reserves to a nine week period. This option would still provide for election signs in parks and reserves and meet community expectations. These changes would apply to the upcoming by-elections in February 2018 and any future elections, unless the decision is revisited.

8. A nine week period is also consistent with the Electoral Act 1993, which provides that no limitation contained in a bylaw restricts election advertising for a period of nine weeks prior to a general election. This legislation contemplates that local authorities may seek to limit the display of election signs, but provides an override for a nine week period. Further, a nine week restriction for public sites has been in place in Auckland since the bylaw was made in 2013, and therefore continuation of this restriction is in line with community expectations. The complaint to the Minister of Transport in 2016 concerned private sites, which are not affected by the proposal to reintroduce a time restriction on public sites.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) amend landowner approvals for election signs to provide a nine week time restriction on local parks and reserves identified in the List of Election Sign Sites.

b) request that Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee provide a nine week time restriction for election signs on road reserve to provide a consistency for public sites across Auckland.

c) request that Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee consider updating their List of Election Sign Sites to reflect these time restrictions in accordance with clause 6 of the Election Signs Bylaw 2013.

Comments

Background

9. On 1 August 2017 the Auckland Transport Board amended the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 (“the Bylaw”). This amendment, among other things, removed the nine week time restriction on the display of election signs.

10. During the 2016 local body election, a private citizen requested the Minister of Transport to disallow the Bylaw under the provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998. This was due to the time restrictions on the display of election signs, the Bylaw breached the right to freedom of expression in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“BoRA”). The Minister took no action at the time, but required Auckland Transport to review the time restriction in 2017.

11. Prior to the amendment, Auckland Transport consulted with the public and stakeholders. Of the 51 submissions received, 40 disagreed with the proposed removal of the time restriction. They raised concerns over visual pollution issues (loss of amenity if signs remained longer than a nine-week period) and increased safety risk associated with the lack of maintenance and the temporary nature of such signage and supporting structures.

12. Auckland Transport specifies which public sites are suitable for the display of election signs. The report to the Auckland Transport Board (1 August 2017) concluded that time restrictions could be imposed through this process (by only permitting public sites to be used for limited periods of time). This was thought sufficient to address concerns raised by submitters on this issue. Auckland Transport will be seeking feedback from local boards on signage sites prior to the 2019 local body elections. The Auckland Transport website provides a list of the current election sign sites (https://at.govt.nz/about-us/bylaws/election-signs-bylaw/#v).

13. Local Boards have the jurisdiction of local parks and reserves. Prior to the 2016 local body elections, Auckland Transport sought feedback from local boards about the use of local parks and reserves for the use of temporary election signs. Auckland Transport updated the List of Election Sign Sites (located on the Auckland Transport website) following consideration of local board feedback. Due to the Bylaw amendment, these sites, including those in local reserves, can now be used for election signs for periods longer than nine weeks, and this needs review.

Existing issues caused by election signs

14. During the run up to the 2017 general election (1 July 2017 to 29 Sep 2017), council received 131 complaints about election signs. Of those complaints received 63 were about signs being placed in the wrong location, 20 were about oversized signs, 17 raised maintenance issues and 11 complaints were about early placement. There were also a small number of complaints about signs being erected on private property without permission, multiple signs being located on one site and safety hazards. Twenty percent of the complaints were associated with signs on parks and reserves. Community Facilities noted that existing issues with election signs relate to broken signs, which are often abandoned and become an eyesore or hazard.

15. Council staff anticipate that if election signs are erected for a period longer than nine weeks, there will be additional issues with amenity and safety. Safety concerns include risks associated signs collapsing or blowing down and broken hoardings creating hazards like sharp edges.

16. There will also be additional complaints and increased council costs associated with compliance and park maintenance.

Freedom of expression

17. The following analysis of considerations under BoRA has been prepared by council’s Legal and Risk Department.

18. Under section 14 (Freedom of expression) of the BoRA everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. Restricting the time period that parties and candidates for election can erect signs promoting their election campaigns restricts the freedom of expression.

19. Under section 5 (Justified limitations) of the BoRA the rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

20. The section 5 inquiry has been summarised in a leading Supreme Court case (R v Hansen [2007] NZSC 7) as follows:

(a) does the limiting measure serve a purpose sufficiently important to justify some limitation of the right or freedom?

(b) If so, then:

(i) is the limit rationally connected with the objective?

(ii) does the limit impair the right or freedom no more than is reasonably necessary for sufficient achievement of the objective?

(iii) is the limit in due proportion to the importance of the objective?

21. In considering the approach to determining whether a limiting measure impairs a right "no more than is reasonably necessary", the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Health v Atkinson [2012] 3 NZLR 456 endorsed the following approach from a Canadian case:

"The law must be carefully tailored so that rights are impaired no more than necessary. The tailoring process seldom admits of perfection and the courts must accord some leeway to the legislator. If the law falls within a range of reasonable alternatives, the courts will not find it overbroad merely because they can conceive of an alternative which might better tailor objective to infringement. On the other hand, if the government fails to explain why a significantly less intrusive and equally effective measure was not chosen, the law may fail."

22. The Court of Appeal agreed that if there is an alternative option that will have less impact, it does not follow that the option adopted is necessarily outside the range of reasonable alternatives.

Purpose of restriction

23. The purposes of the proposed time restriction on public sites are set out above and can be summarised as:

· minimising the risk to public safety (e.g. signs collapsing or blowing down, broken hoardings creating hazards like sharp edges);

· allowing the public to have access and use of public reserves with minimal disruption;

· maintaining visual amenity in public places; and

· limiting the amount of public expenditure that must be spent on compliance monitoring and enforcement, and the maintenance of parks and reserves.

24. These are legitimate concerns that justify some limitation on the freedom of expression.

Connection with objective

25. The proposed time restrictions are rationally connected with the achievement of these purposes. Limiting the amount of time that an election sign may be displayed (and therefore limiting expression on such signs) is intended to promote and protect public safety and/or amenity, protect access to public parks and reserves, and minimise expenditure on compliance and maintenance.

Restriction no more than reasonably necessary

26. The proposed nine week restriction is a reasonable limit on the freedom of expression for signs in public places. The restriction applies only to signs on the designated public sites. Elections signs may be displayed without time restriction on any private property (including commercial billboards and poster board sites). Further, the election signs to which the restriction applies are located in public places, where there is no general right to have the structure in any event - the bylaw therefore effectively authorises the sign (and the expression) when it would not otherwise be allowed.

27. Election signs are only one means of advertising a candidate or party in an election. Other options open to candidates include the internet (e.g. social media advertising), radio or television advertising, pamphlets, letterbox drops, public meetings, and advertising on vehicles.

28. A nine week period is also consistent with the Electoral Act 1993, which provides that no limitation contained in a bylaw restricts election advertising for a period of nine weeks prior to a general election. This legislation contemplates that local authorities may seek to limit the display of election signs, but provides an override for a nine week period. Further, a nine week restriction for public sites has been in place in Auckland since the bylaw was made in 2013, and therefore continuation of this restriction is in line with community expectations. The complaint to the Minister of Transport in 2016 concerned private sites, which are not affected by the proposal to reintroduce a time restriction on public sites.

29. Given the wide range of advertising and promotional opportunities open to candidates, the proposed restriction on public parks and reserves does not restrict the freedom of expression more than reasonably necessary.

Proportionality

30. Overall, the proposed time restriction is not considered to be a disproportionate limit on freedom of expression, given the importance of the objectives. Ensuring the public safety of park users is a matter of very high importance, and there is also a high amenity value in regulating the proliferation of election signage that occurs prior to every election. A reasonably high level of interference with freedom of expression might therefore be justifiable. In fact, however, the time restriction involves only a reasonably modest limit on freedom of expression. It is a measured response, far from being a blanket ban, and candidates can still promote or otherwise express themselves using other means. The proposed restriction is consistent with community expectations and the Electoral Act, and many other councils around New Zealand similarly restrict election signage, suggesting the proposal is not out of step with what is considered reasonable regulation of election signs that are in or visible from public places.

31. The proposed time restriction is therefore not considered to be inconsistent with the BoRA. Such limits as there are on freedom of expression are reasonable and "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society", in terms of section 5 of that Act.

Options

32. Local boards have the following options available to them, which are discussed in more detail below:

· continue without a time limit on public election signs;

· amend landowner approvals to limit the time period to nine weeks prior to an election;

· amend landowner approvals to limit the time period of shorter or longer than nine weeks; or

· revoke landowner approval for election signs on parks and reserves.

33. The pros and cons of each approach are provided in Table 1.

Option 1 - Continue without a time limit on public election signs

34. Under the do nothing option, local boards would continue to allow use of the parks and reserves as provided for in the List of Election Sign Sites. There would be no time limit on how long the signs could remain on parks and reserves. Staff do not recommend this option.

Option 2 - Limit time period to nine weeks on parks and reserves

35. Under this option, election signs on parks and reserves would be limited to a time period of nine weeks before the election date. This would be consistent with the timeframes that local boards agreed to when Auckland Transport sought feedback on the sites in the List of Election Sign Sites. It is also consistent with the time limitations imposed during the general elections. This option would still provide for election signs in parks and reserves and meet community expectations (as the nine week time period has been past practice).

36. If this option was selected, local boards would need to request that Auckland Transport to resolve to update the list sites that are suitable for the display of election signs under clause 6 of the Bylaw.

37. Staff recommend that the Local Board adopt this option.

Option 3 - Amend landowner approvals to limit the time period of shorter or longer than nine weeks

38. Under this option election signs on parks and reserves would be limited to a time period, with the length determined by the local board. The key disadvantage of this proposal is that if different sites have different time limits, this could lead to confusion for candidates and the public and lead to inadvertent non-compliance, therefore it is not recommended

39. As with option two, local boards would need to instruct Auckland Transport to resolve to update the list sites that are suitable for the display of election signs under clause 6 of the Bylaw.

Option 4 - Revoke landowner approval for election signs on parks and reserves

40. Under this option, landowner approval for election signs on parks and reserves would be revoked. While this option would remove the impacts of election signs on parks and reserves, it would also reduce the available locations for election signs, therefore it is not recommended.

Table 1 – Pros and cons of options for election signs on parks and reserves

Pros

Cons

Option 1 – Continue without a time limit on public election signs

· Consistent administration of the Bylaw across local boards

· Opportunity to update time limits is provided when Auckland Transport undertakes a review of public election sign sites.

· Provides the opportunity for candidates to erect signs at any time, and retain them there until the day prior to the election.

· Potential to “privatise” parks and reserves where signage is located over extended periods of time.

· Potential to increase maintenance costs (e.g. mowing around signage).

· Potential to increase the compliance costs of administering signage under the Bylaw.

· Increased risk to safety due to the temporary nature of signage and decay of signs over time.

· Increased opportunity to progressively impact on amenity, where signs become scruffy from prolonged exposure to the elements.

· Increased chance of public dissatisfaction and complaints.

Option 2 - Limit time period to nine weeks on parks and reserves

· Continues the status quo (prior to the Bylaw change), and is consistent with community expectation.

· Limits the adverse impacts of signage (visual amenity, safety).

· Limits the impact on maintenance contracts (e.g. mowing around signs).

· Limits safety and amenity concerns to a nine week timeframes.

· Consistent with the nine week Electoral Act timeframe.

· Small loss of amenity and use of parks and reserves due to election signage over a short period of time.

· Needs Auckland Transport to also impose a nine week time limit on road reserve to ensure consistency.

Option 3 - Amend landowner approvals to limit the time period of shorter or longer than nine weeks

· Limits the adverse impacts of signage (visual amenity, safety).

· Limits the impact on maintenance contracts (e.g. mowing around signs).

· Limits safety and amenity concerns to a short timeframe.

· Inconsistent timeframe across local board areas would be confusing for candidates, the public and council staff.

· If the timeframes are shortened significantly, there may be freedom of expression implications under the BoRA.

Option 4 - Revoke landowner approval for election signs on parks and reserves

· Removes any effects caused by election signs on parks and reserves.

· The number of public places for election signs is decreased across the Auckland region.

· If there are very limited election sign locations, there may be freedom of expression implications under the BoRA.

41. Option 2 is the preferred option because it continues to provide for election signs on parks and reserves and is consistent with what local boards have previously agreed when making previous decisions on placement of election signs.

42. The inclusion of a nine week time limit provides some consistency with the Electoral Act. During the nine weeks before polling day the display of election advertisements are not subject to prohibitions imposed in other enactments or in bylaws imposed by local authorities.

43. Staff also consider that a consistent approach to time limits across all local board areas is important. This is because it will provide consistent rules and messaging across the region for candidates, the public and council staff.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

44. This report seeks direction from the local board on whether or not to impose a timeframe on election signs in parks and reserves under the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013. All local boards are considering the report to ensure there is a consistent set of rules for election signs across Auckland.

Māori impact statement

45. The impacts associated with election signs are considered to have a similar impact on Māori compared to the general population. There has been no specific engagement with iwi or mana whenua as part of this report.

Implementation

46. Information provided to candidates for the upcoming February 2018 by-elections will include the location of public election sign sites and time restrictions agreed by local boards and Auckland Transport.

47. These changes would apply to the upcoming by-elections in February 2018 and any future elections, unless the decision is revisited.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Carol Stewart - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Anna Bray - Policy & Planning Manager - Local Boards, Policy and Planning

Henderson-Massey Local Board

21 November 2017

Harbourview - Orangihina master plan - approval of engagement approach

File No.: CP2017/22029

Purpose

1. To approve the engagement approach for the development of a master plan for Harbourview - Orangihina Park.

Executive summary

2. This report outlines the proposed approach to public engagement for the development of a master plan for Harbourview - Orangihina Park.

3. A master plan is a non-statutory, document that outlines a vision to guide development of a park for the next ten years. The plan will identify values of the park to be protected and activities which can happen in the park. Once completed, the plan will assist the local board in making decision about the park and prioritising future investment.

4. The plan will also provide guidance on how a future community marae development could be integrated into the park, in alignment with the Unitary Plan zoning for this activity.

5. One of the main purposes of the engagement is to provide a voice to the wider community, across different ages and ethnicities. This is to be achieved by using a mix of engagement methods to give a variety of opportunities for community input.

6. An important component of the engagement approach is the forming of a reference group for the project. The group will be set up for the duration of the project only and operate under agreed Terms of Reference.

7. Engagement will happen in two phases; pre-draft engagement and consultation on the draft plan. The first phase will focus on engaging with key stakeholders and establishing a community reference group. Phase two will focus on consulting with the wider public on the draft plan.

8. Following approval of the purpose and engagement approach the master planning project will commence.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) approve the development of a master plan for Harbourview-Orangihina Park

b) approve the approach to engagement, to be undertaken in two phases – pre-draft focusing on key stakeholders and consultation on the draft plan with the wider community

c) confirm Members Brenda Brady, Will Flavell and Vanessa Neeson as the local board representatives on the community reference group

d) endorse the master plan to provide guidance on how a future marae development could be integrated into the park.

Comments

9. Funding for the development of a master plan for Harbourview - Orangihina Park is now available, following the allocation of up to $120,000 by the Henderson-Massey Local Board in May 2017 (Resolution number HM/2017/63).

10. This report outlines the proposed approach to public engagement for the development of the master plan.

Site description

11. The approximately 80 hectare Harbourview - Orangihina Park is located on the eastern shore of Te Atatu Peninsula, overlooking the Waitemata Harbour (see location map in Attachment A). It is a place with high ecological and cultural heritage values.

12. The park is a key biodiversity site for the Upper Waitemata area. It provides habitat for threatened and endangered bird species such as fernbird, wrybills and banded rail.

13. The park includes land held under the Reserves Act 1977 and land managed under the Local Government Act 2002.

14. Under the Auckland Unitary Plan the land is largely zoned for conservation and informal recreation purposes and includes 2.5 hectares of land zoned as Special Purpose - Māori Purpose Zone, for the development of an urban marae.

Project purpose

15. The purpose of the project is to develop a master plan for the park.

16. A master plan is a non-statutory document that outlines a vision to guide development and investment potential of a park for the next ten years. It will not provide a detailed design, but sets out how the park could be developed or redeveloped in the future.

17. The Harbourview - Orangihina Park master plan will include all land in the park and identify

· values of the park to be protected,

· activities that can happen in the park.

18. It should be noted that the plan will provide guidance on how a future community marae development could be integrate into the park. Notwithstanding that the proposal will be subject to further consideration by the local board.

Engagement approach

19. At a workshop with the local board in August 2017, a number of key considerations for the development of the master plan were highlighted by local board members. These are

· mana whenua are partners in the development of the master plan

· a desire to provide a voice to the wider community, including reaching out to schools, rangatahi, older residents and other ethnicities

· a desire to create a shared understanding between council and the different stakeholders about the values of the park and activities that can and cannot occur.

20. These considerations are reflected in the engagement approach for this project.

21. One of the important components of the engagement approach is the forming of a community reference group for the project. The group will be set up for the duration of the project and members are expected to attend up to four project workshops and operate under agreed Terms of Reference.

22. The group will be limited to 20 members and will include mana whenua representatives, council staff, local board members and representatives from the wider community.

23. Recruitment for the wider community representatives of the reference group will be undertaken via expressions of interest. Group members will be selected by staff based on criteria to establish a group with mixed age, ethnicity and interests from across the community.

24. The aim of giving the wider community a voice throughout this project will be achieved by using a mix of methods to give a variety of opportunities for input.

25. The engagement will happen in two phases. The first phase will be pre-draft engagement, which will focus on key stakeholders, input from the reference group, and generating ideas from the wider public. The second stage will be after the plan is drafted and will focus on consultation with the wider public.

26. The table below outlines the methods for engagement for the two phases:

Phase 1 - Pre-draft engagement	Phase 2 - Consultation on draft
Park tours and workshops with key external stakeholders and mana whenua	Consultation on draft plan via Shape Auckland and hard copy surveys at local library
Recruitment of the community reference group (CRG) and initial workshops with the CRG	Open day – link in with events like kite day, mud run and parks activation i.e. an amazing race
Informing the wider community of the project and generating ideas via postcards, social media and interviews	Opportunity to align with local board annual budget consultation
Engagement with schools and young people via talks, social media, #loveharbourview

Timeline and key milestones

27. Phase one of the engagement is expected to be carried out between December 2017 and March 2018. The key output of this phase will be the draft master plan for consultation with the wider community.

28. Phase two is expected to be undertaken between March and June 2018. The key output of this phase is the final master plan.

29. The table in Attachment B outlines the high-level project timeline with proposed milestones and estimated completion dates. Key deliverables of the project are highlighted in grey.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

30. Workshops were held with the local board in August and November 2017. These focussed on the purpose and objectives of the project, engagement principles and the proposed engagement approach.

31. During the workshops local board members were supportive of the engagement approach and the setting up of a reference group for the project. The board nominated three of its members as representatives for the reference group; Members Brenda Brady, Will Flavell and Vanessa Neeson. This report is seeking to formalise these nominations.

Māori impact statement

32. Mana whenua are considered partners in the development of the master plan for Harbourview - Orangihina Park.

33. Staff attended the Parks and Recreation – Mana Whenua North-West Forum on 4 October 2017 to introduce the project and gauge interest of mana whenua to be involved.

34. Discussions at the forum focused on the appropriateness of the storm water ponds in the park and the waste water pumping station; and the identification of kauri on the site and the need to ensure their protection to prevent the spread of kauri dieback.

35. Te Kawerau a Maki has previously developed a cultural impact assessment for the site, and this will be updated for this project.

36. A number of iwi have informally expressed their interest in being involved in the development of the master plan. Following this report, staff will formally enquire with mana whenua about their interests in being involved in this project.

Mataawaka/ Te Atatu Marae Coalition

37. Waitakere City Council has been supportive of the development of a marae on the Te Atatu Peninsula since 1988 and an area of Harbourview - Orangihina Park has been set aside for this purpose by zoning 2.5 hectares as Special Purpose - Māori Purpose Zone.

38. The Te Atatu Marae Coalition is a mataawaka organisation with the purpose to develop a community marae within the park.

Community views

39. Community engagement had been carried out by Waitakere City Council between 2000 and 2003 for the preparation of the draft Harbourview-Orangihina Open Space Management Plan 2003 and People’s Park concept plan development.

40. Research with the community was also undertaken as part of the preparation of the Henderson-Massey Open Space Network Plan 2015.

41. No specific community views have been gathered for the proposed development of a master plan for Harbourview - Orangihina Park. This report outlines the approach to engagement and the gathering of ideas and feedback from the local and wider community for the park and its development.

Implementation

42. Following the approval of the purpose and engagement approach for the project by the local board, the project will commence as outlined in this report.

43. Once completed, the plan will assist the board in making decisions about the park and prioritising future investment.

44. It is anticipated that implementation of the plan will be staged.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location map	45
b ⇩	High-level project timeline and key milestones	47

Signatories

Authors

Nicki Malone - Service and Asset Planner

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

21 November 2017

Henderson-Massey Local Board capex fund allocation to the Unlock Henderson Project

File No.: CP2017/22084

Purpose

1. To approve allocation of Henderson-Massey Local Board local discretionary initiative capital (LDI capex) funds and Auckland Transport capital (AT capex) funds for the delivery of the Opanuku Link project identified in the Unlock Henderson High Level Project Plan (HLPP).

2. To endorse an integrated place-led approach to delivering these projects across council and Council Controlled Organisations, facilitated by Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku).

Executive summary

3. Henderson-Massey Local Board and the Panuku Board endorsed the HLPP in March 2017 (attachment A). The Planning, Finance and Performance Committees adopted the HLPP in May 2017 (attachment B).

4. The local board endorsed vision for Henderson to become an Urban Eco Centre encapsulates and promotes the actions and key moves identified within both Henderson-Massey Local Board Plans 2014 and 2017, the Henderson Implementation Plan 2014 and the Panuku HLPP 2017. This vision includes a cultural narrative that builds on the strong foundations of Waitakere City’s Eco-city mantra and puts the emphasis on green growth.

5. The above documents will guide the use of the proposed budget allocation of $1 million of LDI capex and $1.5 million of AT capex towards delivering the Opanuku Link project (attachment C).

6. The Opanuku Link project has three components:

· LDI capex component: An open space amenity enhancement of Opanuku Reserve at 1a and 1b Henderson Valley Road with a broad proposed theme of a whanau papatākaro (Māori family play area) enabled by a $1 million budget allocation.

· AT capex component: The ‘Opanuku Link’ - a walking and cycling transport project which is intended to re-connect Corban Estate to the train station, town centre and Library by the creation of a bridge over Opanuku stream from the Corban Estate buildings, pathways through the Opanuku Reserve, a pedestrian crossing of Henderson Valley Road, cycle related infrastructure at the Henderson Train Station including associated cycle paths and tactical treatments to the library enabled by a $1.5 million budget allocation.

· Panuku component: The allowance for a proposed publicly vested “greenway” through the Henderson council staff car park development site to connect with the train station. A business case process is underway to determine a funding approach to this component.

7. Panuku has allocated operating expenditure to progress scoping, due diligence, planning, design and consenting during the 2017/2018 financial year. Detailed design and construction drawings, including procurement is proposed to be progressed by utilising the allocated capital funds (LDI and AT Capex).

8. The overall proposed and combined $2.5 million Opanuku Link project will contribute to achieving a more socially and spatial connected community and to enhance the quality of life of users by enabling better access to the local arts centre and providing a new, more convenient link to the train station and town centre from west of the Opanuku stream. The project responds to two key moves identified in the Henderson Implementation Plan to re-connect Corban Estate and to catalyse high quality living on council land.

Recommendations

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) allocate $1.5 million of Local Board Transport Capital Funds to Panuku Development Auckland in order to co-ordinate the integrated delivery of the “Opanuku Link”, comprising;

- a shared path through Opanuku Reserve connecting to Corban Estate

- a pedestrian/cycle bridge over Opanuku Stream

- a pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of 1 Henderson Valley Road, subject to Panuku gaining consent

- wheel ramps at Henderson Train Station

- tactical treatments along Railside Avenue and Ratanui Street to the Library

b) allocate $1 million of the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s Local Discretionary Initiatives capital funds to Panuku Development Auckland to lead, integrate and co-ordinate the delivery of the enhancement of Opanuku Reserve at 1A and 1B Henderson Valley Road;

c) endorse Panuku Development Auckland as the lead agency for these projects under the Unlock Henderson programme;

d) note that Panuku Development Auckland will work with the Henderson community as per the Unlock Henderson High Level Project Plan principles, Auckland Transport and Community Facilities to deliver the Opanuku Link project in accordance with the Urban Eco Centre vision and the Unlock Henderson High Level Project Plan.

Comments

9. The proposed allocation of Henderson-Massey $1 million of LDI capex and $1.5 million of AT capex for the Opanuku Link project strongly supports Key Move 2 and 4 in the Henderson Implementation Plan, to catalyse high quality living and re-connect Corban Estate. The budgets will support enabling the implementation of Project 2 being the development of the 1.73ha council staff car park at 2-4 Henderson Valley Road and Initiatives 2 and 3 of the Public Good Initiatives identified in the HLPP.

10. Project 2 includes proposed provision of enhanced connectivity between Corban Estate and the Henderson Rail Station, through the project site by the creation of a greenway link.

11. The Opanuku Link project arises from the overall Henderson centre’s earlier workshopped open space concept of creating “Twin Gateways on the Twin Streams” (attachments D, E and F). These gateways being the Falls Park adjacent to the Oratia Stream and the Opanuku Reserve adjacent to the Opanuku Stream. The overarching concept is that these parks become twin gateways that provide entry points where users of the project twin streams cycleways can enter the central Henderson area by “drawing the green into the centre”. This concept is spatially represented by a greenway from Opanuku Reserve into the car park development site which extends the “green” towards the centre.

12. Resulting from the above the Opanuku Link project is proposed to include the following physical works:

· a new shared path (50-80m) between Corban estate and Opanuku Stream

· a new walking and cycling bridge over the Opanuku Stream from Corban Estate to Opanuku Reserve, 42m x 4m (actual location to be determined)

· enhancement of Opanuku stream edge vegetation where necessary

· a new shared path (80m+) through Opanuku Reserve to Henderson Valley Road

· a small accessible children’s play opportunity (whanau papatākaro)

· the creation of a pedestrian crossing of Henderson Valley Road in the vicinity of 1 Henderson Valley Road

· A greenway connection through the development site to connect the train station

· additional pedestrian paths (approximately 120m) and amenity furniture

· subsoil drainage to the grass areas to enhance informal recreational opportunities

· new cycle related infrastructure at the Council building and train Station concourse

· Tactical treatments on the route from the Train Station to the Library

13. The Opanuku Reserve enhancement component of the project has a proposed
“play” theme of ‘whānau papatākaro’ with a focus on supporting the urban eco-centre, family play and accessibility outcomes. These themes are a progression of local board workshops in May, August and September 2017 where these themes were initially proposed. We will consult further with the agreed stakeholders and partners on these themes once the funding has been allocated to refine these concepts.

14. It is anticipated that these physical works will commence from January 2019 and potentially be delivered in separate stages such as the bridge, reserve and development greenway link during 2019.

15. The proposed funding allocation has been discussed and is supported by the relevant staff in both Auckland Council (Parks Services and Community Facilities) and Auckland Transport.

16. Work undertaken by Panuku on behalf of the local board will align to the Vision for Henderson to become an “Urban Eco Centre, enhancing the mauri of the twin streams Wai O Panuku and Wai Horotiu”.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17. The development of Opanuku Park contributes to the 2017 Local Board Plan outcome “A network of vibrant and loved urban neighbourhoods” and the objective “Quality residential intensification is happening in Henderson”.

18. The initial draft concept plan and cost estimate for developing Opanuku Park was workshopped with the board on 30 May and further detail on costs and design was workshopped on 5 September.

19. The board supports the integrated collaborative approach with council departments and Auckland Transport on the Opanuku Reserve development.

Māori impact statement

20. Mana whenua seek to play an integrated cultural, social and economic part in the “unlocking” of Henderson. Engagement with mana whenua has contributed to defining the overall approach and narrative of the overall Unlock Henderson project. The key themes emerging through this engagement relate to recognising and upholding the cultural values of the place and place naming, valuing the environment and designing for the people. These themes are set in the context of an ongoing collaborative partnership approach to development that is inclusive and regenerative with a strong sustainability ethos.

21. Mana whenua have a strong historical footprint in Henderson and seek to build on this association through involvement in residential and public realms projects which recognise their values and draws on Te Aranga design principles. The Opanuku Link project is seen as a strong contributing project to help support Unlock Henderson vision, which includes “enhancing the mauri of the twin streams…”

22. Opportunities for mana whenua specifically in the Opanuku Link project may extend to artistic involvement and commissions, integrated design guidance and Te Aranga design.

23. 10 Tamaki Makaurau mana whenua have interests in the Henderson-Massey area. Panuku will work in partnership with mana whenua towards high quality outcomes throughout planning and implementation of the Opanuku Link. The list of mana whenua that have been identified are:

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngāti Paoa

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Tamaterā

Implementation

24. The Opanuku Link project is intended to be delivered by Auckland Council’s Community Facilities on behalf of Panuku for the Henderson-Massey Local Board, led and facilitated by Panuku Unlock Henderson representatives.

Table 1. Proposed Opanuku Link project timeline for implementation

Phase of work	Dates	Consultation Dates	Stakeholder
Initial design and theming	November to December 2017	Early December and End of December 2017	Panuku mana whenua forum Henderson-Massey Local Board
Concept design	January to March 2018	End of March to Mid-April 2018	Henderson-Massey Local Board Targeted stakeholder/ community engagement
Developed design, consenting	May to July 2018	End of July	Henderson-Massey Local Board approval to proceed
Tender drawings and internal procurement process	August to September 2018	Tender process from	Panuku and Community Facilities
Tender process and evaluation	September to November 2018	N/A	Panuku, Community Facilities
Appointment of Contractors	December 2018	N/A	Panuku, Community Facilities
Staged Contract works	From January 2019	N/A	N/A

25. The Opanuku pedestrian bridge may need to progress separately during the same year as this is a more complex component of the proposal and requires specific engineering works.

26. The pedestrian crossing element may be progressed as part of the development site consent during 2018 as this includes a proposed new road connection to Henderson Valley Road at the location of the pedestrian crossing.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	HMLB resolution	55
b ⇩	Finance and Planning Committee resolution	57
c ⇩	Opanuku Link capex map	59
d ⇩	Project strategic concept context	61
e ⇩	Opanuku Link scope area	63
f ⇩	Indicative reserve enhancement priorities	65

Signatories

Authors

Richard Davison - Senior Project Planning Leader

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Brenna Waghorn - Manager Strategic Planning

Henderson-Massey Local Board

21 November 2017

Henderson-Massey Quick Response, Round Two 2017/2018 grant applications

File No.: CP2017/22440

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present applications received for the Henderson-Massey Quick Response, Round Two 2017/2018. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive summary

2. The Henderson-Massey Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $124,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year.

3. A total of $13,078 was allocated through the Quick Response Round One and $39,949 was allocated in the Local Grants Round One, leaving a balance of $70,973 for the remainder of the 2017/2018 financial year.

4. Fifteen applications were received in this round, with a total requested amount of $28,176 (Attachment B)

5. A further two multiboard applications were received for Local Grants Round One 2017/2018, after the closing date, requesting a total amount of $8,000 (Attachment C)

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) consider the applications listed in Table One and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round.

Table One: Applications for the Henderson-Massey Local Grants, Round One 2017/2018

Application No.	Organisation Name	Project	Total Requested
QR1805-210	Claire O'Neil	Towards sound system hire, flyers and performer fees for performances around the Henderson Mall area by the Fidget Collective	$1,500
QR1805-219	Action Education	Towards Spoken Word workshops and performances within the Henderson-Massey area	$2,000
QR1805-207	Royal New Zealand Plunket Society Incorporated	Towards rent, resources, toys and administration costs for the Pacifika Beatz Playgroup from January to June 2018	$1,740
QR1805-209	Waitakere Japanese Supplementary School (WJSS)	Towards venue hire at Glen Eden Intermediate School for Term One 2018	$1,150
QR1805-212	Cadence Kaumoana (umbrella'ed by Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Hoani Waititi)	Towards printing, resources, facilitator koha and travel costs for the “Entrepreneurial Mindset Programme,” also towards catering, hireage, prizes, and certificates for the final event	$4,000
QR1805-215	Refugees as Survivors New Zealand Trust	Towards venue hire, facilitator, interpreter fees, transport, parent resources, childcare and administration costs for the “Positive Parenting” support programme” for Rwandan mothers of refugee or migrant backgrounds.	$1,595
QR1805-220	West Harbour Playcentre	Towards purchasing shelves, sensory table and mirror, and baby mirror for the West Harbour Playcentre	$2,010
QR1805-222	Parent Aid Waitakere Incorporated	Towards purchasing an office laptop for administration	$1,574
QR1805-205	Adventure Specialties Trust	Towards purchasing a new hard drive and computer screen for administration	$1,689
QR1805-218	Urban EcoLiving Charitable Trust	Towards educator contractors and travel costs to deliver the Tread Lightly Caravan at Pomaria Primary School	$1,633
QR1805-201	Florists New Zealand Incorporated	Towards cool storage for the Apprentice Florist of the Year Competition 2017 at the New Zealand Flower and Garden Show on 3 December 2017	$2,000
QR1805-206	Waitakere Orchid Club Incorporated	Towards venue hire of Kelston Community Centre for the Waitakere Orchid Club Spring Show	$1,497
QR1805-214	Waitakere Arts and Cultural Development Trust (Corban Estate Arts Centre)	Towards wages for the event coordinator to organise the “Vibe Youth Festival” on 16 June 2018.	$1,800
QR1805-213	Zeal Education Trust	Towards wages and production costs for two performances of “Le Era Fou - The New Era”	$1,988
QR1805-203	Henderson Croquet Club	Towards new fencing for the Henderson Croquet Club	$2,000
		Total requested	$28,176

b) accept and consider the multiboard applications listed in Table Two and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round.

Table Two: multiboard applications received after the closing date for Local Grants, Round One 2017/2018

Application No.	Organisation Name	Project	Total Requested
LG1806-138	New Zealand Dance Advancement Trust	Towards costs to create, rehearse and deliver the “Youth Engagement” performances and workshops delivery - dancers salaries, artistic teams salaries, transport to the schools and rehearsal space hire	$5,000
LG1809-102	TM (2016) Limited	Towards initial printing costs for Te reo Māori resources	$3,000
		Total requested	$8,000

Comments

6. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme (see Attachment A).

7. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close

· any additional accountability requirements.

8. The Henderson-Massey Local Board will operate two local grant rounds and three quick response rounds in this financial year. The Henderson-Massey Quick Response, Round Two 2017/2018 closed on 13 October 2017.

9. The community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, radio, and community networks.

10. The Henderson-Massey Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $124,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. It is recommended that the board consider allocating up to 16% of the budget in this grant round.

11. A total of $13,078 has been allocated through the quick response round one, and $39,949 was allocated in the local grants round one, leaving a balance of $70,973 for the remainder of the 2017/2018 financial year.

12. Fifteen applications were received in this round, with a total requested amount of $28,176 (Attachment B)

13. A further two multiboard applications were received after the closing date for Local Grants, Round One requesting a total amount of $8,000 (Attachment C)

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Henderson-Massey Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

15. The board is requested to note that section 50 of the Community Grants Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time.”

16. A summary of each application is attached (see Attachment B and C).

Māori impact statement

17. The provision of community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes, activities that benefit a wider range of individuals and groups, including Māori. As a guide for decision-making, in the allocation of community grants, the new community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Māori. One applicant applying in this round has identified as a Māori individual or organisation and five applications have indicated their project targets Māori or Māori outcomes.

Implementation

18. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long Term Plan 2015-2025 and local board agreements.

19. Following the Henderson-Massey Local Board allocating funding for Local Grants Round One, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Henderson-Massey Grants Programme 2017/2018	71
b ⇩	Henderson-Massey Quick Response Round Two 2017/2018 grant applications	73
c ⇩	Henderson-Massey Local Grants Round One 2017/2018 multiboard applications	123

Signatories

Authors

Caroline Teh - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

21 November 2017

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Henderson-Massey Local Board for quarter one, 1 July - 30 September 2017

File No.: CP2017/23617

Purpose

1. To provide the Henderson-Massey Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter one, 1 July to 30 September 2017.

Executive summary

2. This report includes financial performance, progress against local board key performance indicators, progress against work programmes, key challenges the board should be aware of and any risks to delivery against the 2017/2018 work programme.

3. Of significance this quarter the local board;

· allocated $400,000 towards the Te Whau Pathway and $160,000 towards a raised pedestrian crossing in Rathgar Road from the local board transport capital fund.

· allocated $115,000 Local Discretionary Initiative Capex funds towards the upgrade of the play facilities at Riverpark Reserve.

4. The snapshot (attachment A), indicates performance against the agreed 2017/2018 work programmes is tracking positively.

5. All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (attachment B). All items are reported as ‘green’ status (95 per cent on track) except for those which have a ‘red’ status (2 per cent behind delivery, incorporated into larger projects) or an ’amber’ status (3 per cent with some risk or issues, which are being managed).

6. The overall financial performance for quarter one 2017/2018 is favourable compared to the budget. There are some points for the board to note:

· Overall, the net financial performance of the Henderson Massey local board is under budget to date. Operating expenditure is below budget by 20% due mainly to lower than anticipated parks maintenance and operating revenue was above budget by 32% due to learn to swim and recreation revenue (after school care) being ahead of target. Capital expenditure was (38%) under budget. The majority of the capital spend in the quarter to September was mainly in at Westgate multi- purpose community facility building and Totara stormwater ponds.

· Attachment C contains further detailed financial information.

7. The key performance indicators show a projected trend of delivery that meets the indicators, with the exceptions shown in red in attachment D.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) receive the performance report for the financial quarter ending 30 September 2017.

Comments

8. The Henderson-Massey Local Board has an approved 2017/2018 work programme for the following operating departments:

· Arts, Community and Events; approved on 16 May 2017

· Parks, Sport and Recreation; approved on 20 June 2017

· Libraries and Information; approved on 20 June 2017

· Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew; approved on 20 June 2017

· Community Leases; approved on 20 June 2017

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services; approved on 20 June 2017

· Local Economic Development; approved on 20 June 2017

Key achievements for quarter one

9. The Henderson-Massey Local Board has a number of key achievements to report from the quarter one period, which include:

· allocation of $400,000 of local board transport capital fund in 2017/2018 for the Te Whau Pathway; $100,000 to construction of the connector path in Tiroroa Esplanade Reserve and $300,000 in 2018/2019 and $300,000 in 2019/2020 towards physical works.

· allocation of $160,000 from the transport capital fund towards a raised pedestrian crossing in Rathgar Road. This project will enhance safety at this crossing facility and improve the amenity of the street

· funded Te Whanau o Waipareira Trust to deliver the Nga Kawa o Tangaroa (a dive programme for rangitahi) programme is underway. This is a youth development programme that focusses on diving and collecting kai moana (shellfish) whilst strengthening whanau ties through the activities.

· agreement with Te Kawerau o Maki on the Mana Whenua Relationship Agreement template.

· completion of the new artwork on the windows at the over bridge at Henderson Train Station. This was the result of collaboration between UNITEC, Henderson and Kakano Youth Arts Collective.

Key project updates from the 2017/2018 work programme

10. The following are progress updates against key projects identified in the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan and/or Local Board Agreement:

· An introduction to the Harbourview-Orangahina masterplan was given to the local board in August where staff received valuable information from board members to inform project planning. Mana Whenua and key stakeholder engagement due to commence late October 2017.

· The mapping research of Maori stakeholders and their aspirations for Henderson-Massey Local Board has been completed and was workshopped with the local board on 26 September 2017. This is part of the mahi to develop a local Māori responsiveness plan.

Risks identified in the 2017/2018 work programme

11. The following are risks that have been identified by operating departments where the progress and performance indicator has been set to ‘red’ – significantly behind budget/time or achievement of outcomes/’amber’ status – some risk or issues, which are being managed.

· The renewal of HVAC units at the Westwave Recreation Centre is proceeding slower than expected due to staff resourcing issues.

· Issues with implementing a sediment control system at the Westgate multi-purpose facility have caused delays to this project. These issues are currently being addressed.

Financial performance

12. Operating expenditure is 20% under budget due to lower than anticipated parks maintenance. The new maintenance contract is still bedding in and fluctuations are expected over the year.

13. Operating revenue was above budget by 32% due to increased learn to swim and recreation revenue (after school care) being ahead of target.

14. Overall capital spend is below budget by $3.8m mainly as a result of slower physical works progress at Westgate multipurpose facility and development of Royal reserve delayed by wet weather.

15. The Henderson Massey Local Board Financial performance report is in Appendix C

Key performance indicators

16. The local board agreements include level of service statements and associated performance measures to guide and monitor the delivery of local services. This report provides information on the performance measure year-end outlook for Henderson-Massey Local Board’s measures, showing how we are tracking after the first quarter of FY18.

17. The year-end outlook is that 37 per cent of measures will not achieve target.

18. Currently all performance measures are being reviewed as part of the development of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

19. For the first and second quarter we will be providing the year-end outlook based on the results of 2016/17 or for any changes to the outlook based on results available. In the third quarter we will be in a better position to accurately project the year-end outlook for all measures. This is because the frequency of most measures is annual as data is collected through surveys.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. This report informs the Henderson-Massey Local Board of the performance for the quarter ending 30 September 2017.

Māori impact statement

21. The creation of a local Māori responsiveness action plan is underway which includes key aspirations and priorities for Māori in the area, opportunities for the local board to work to work together with Māori and a plan for building strong relationships and sharing information with Māori.

22. The local board supports Te Whanau o Waipareira Trust to deliver the Ngā Kawa o Tangaroa Tikanga Programme reconnecting rangitahi to their culture. This is a youth development programme that focusses on diving and collecting kai moana (shellfish) whilst strengthening whanau ties through the activities.

23. The local board have directed council staff to identify opportunities for naming or renaming parks and facilities using Māori names to enhance Māori identity and heritage in the Henderson-Massey area. An assessment of the status and background to current names is currently being undertaken and mana whenua are providing direction on the methodology for Māori naming.

Implementation

24. The Local Board will receive the next performance update in February following the end of quarter 2, December 2017.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Work programme Snapshot 2017/2018 Q1	135
b ⇩	Work programme update 2017/2018 Q1	137
c ⇩	Financial performance 2017/2018 Q1	167
d ⇩	Key performance indicators 2017/2018 Q1	175

Signatories

Authors	Tracey Wisnewski - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

21 November 2017

Adoption of a regional membership structure across Auckland Council operated pools and leisure centres

File No.: CP2017/23658

Purpose

1. To endorse the introduction of a regional membership structure across Auckland Council operated pools and leisure centres and approve new membership prices for West Wave Pool and Leisure Centre.

Executive summary

2. The Active Recreation team have developed a strategic “Game Plan” to support the vision of the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan – inspiring more Aucklanders to be more active, more often – and to achieve local board priorities.

3. Deploying a single consolidated operating system across all council operated leisure facilities is a key project in this work programme. The new system supports improved operational and business processes. It also enables Auckland Council to offer a new range of affordable and accessible memberships across all council operated leisure centres.

4. A new membership structure was piloted in three leisure centres in June: Moana-Nui-a-Kiwa, Stanmore Bay and East Coast Bays (Albany Stadium Pool opened in February with the same membership categories).

5. The recommended membership model will provide more choice and membership features, improved benefits and allow full members access to more activities in more centres throughout the region. It will also provide lower cost options for people that predominantly enjoy one activity at their home centre.

6. West Wave Pool and Leisure Centre will become a silver centre. New Get Into It (full) members will gain access to all functions at West Wave and at fourteen other silver and bronze centres across Auckland. Or members can now choose new single function memberships for activities at West Wave only: Gym It (gym access), Move It (group fitness) or Swim It (swimming).

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) endorse the introduction of a regional membership structure across council operated pools and leisure centres.

b) approve revised membership prices for West Wave Pool and Leisure Centre for the 2017/2018 financial year: Get Into It silver membership, valued at $19.50 per week, and Swim It, Move It or Gym It memberships at $16.00 per week.

Comments

Impact in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area

7. West Wave Pool and Leisure Centre will become a silver centre. New members will pay $19.50 per week for full membership and access to all functions at West Wave and at fourteen silver and bronze centres across Auckland. Currently approved membership for 2017/2018 is $20.80 per week and access is limited to West Wave only.

8. Alternatively, members can now choose from two new single function memberships at Albany: Gym It (gym access) or Swim It (swimming) at $16.00 per week.

9. Concessions for seniors, students, families, disabled, community services card holders and green prescription will apply to these prices.

10. Existing members are welcome to retain their memberships until:

a. their current fixed term membership period ends, at which time they will be offered one of the new fixed or open-term memberships, or

b. they choose to upgrade or cancel their open-term direct debit membership.

11. These changes only apply to membership-based products and services. There will be no impact on the cost, features or availability of other activities, including pool entry, Learn-To-Swim, spa/sauna/steam access or casual fitness.

Background – enabling more Aucklanders to be more active, more often

12. Council manages 44 aquatic, leisure and early childhood education (ECE) facilities across the Auckland region. Nineteen pools and leisure centres are operated under contract or lease agreements by third parties. The remainder are managed and operated by council’s Active Recreation team.

13. The Active Recreation “Game Plan” is a three year transformation programme designed to achieve outcomes aligned to the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan (ASARSAP):

· inspiring more Aucklanders to be more active, more often

· enabling our children, young people and whanau to reach their potential

· delivering quality experiences through an operationally cost neutral leisure network.

14. Active Recreation has developed a range of new initiatives to improve engagement with “insufficiently active” Aucklanders, based on extensive sector insights, market research, pilot testing and customer feedback,. These include:

· offering flexibility and variety in our membership offering, including regional access to Auckland Council operated pools and leisure centres (a new membership structure)

· providing consistently high quality and engaging member services that encourage and support regular activity for a wide variety of Aucklanders (a new customer promise).

15. Our new leisure consolidated operating system (LCOS) will be deployed across all council operated leisure facilities by March 2018. The new system will support improvements in operational processes and business practices (including: point of sale, processing entries and payments, managing memberships, running programmes and courses, allocating staff).

16. New Auckland-wide leisure membership

17. One significant advantage of the consolidated operation system – for both customers and council – is the ability to simplify and standardise products (memberships), services (courses and programmes) and prices across the leisure network.

18. It will also enable us to offer a new range of affordable and accessible “Get Active Your Way” memberships that include access to many more of our council operated leisure centres and activities. We have ensured that within each membership tier there is a mix of services including pool, gym and group fitness programmes for customers with “Get into it” membership and that all prices are attuned to the local community.

19. If members want access to centres or services that don’t fall within their home centre’s tier they are welcome to purchase a membership for a tier above.

20. Active Recreation has also introduced a new single function (swimming, fitness, group fitness) membership at each centre to offer a cheaper, more targeted alternative.

21. Screenshot%202017-09-27%2020
Get Active Your Way Membership Structure:

22. The table below outlines the proposed changes to individual membership:

Type of membership	Description	Replaces	What’s the change?
Get Into It	Full membership, offers access to all activities within each centre and to other council operated centres across the region according to three tier groupings: Gold (17 centres, including silver & bronze) Silver (15 centres, including bronze) Bronze (10 centres)	Over 50 different full access memberships. Offered in single or small clusters of centres across the region. Currently prices, services, terms and benefits vary across the region and from centre to centre. Full membership = $20.80/week	Simplicity, clarity and consistency of prices, services and benefits. Access to a much wider range of Auckland Council operated leisure centres. Improved range and quality of services offered. Silver Get Into It membership = $19.50/week
Gym It Swim It Move It	Activity based membership option. Offers access to a specific activity at the local centre: Gym It – gym/fitness centre Swim It – pool/spa/sauna Move It – group fitness	Off-peak and restricted single-centre memberships. NA	This is a new, cheaper membership category meeting the demands of customers who only wish to use the gym, pool or group fitness. Gym It/Move It/Swim It memberships = $16.00/week
Concessions	Senior, disabled, student, youth and green prescription concessions are available for all membership types	Existing concession offers	Membership concessions will be carried forward. Both new and current offers will be applied more consistently.

Membership pilot and positive feedback

23. The membership framework has been extensively researched, developed and tested prior to piloting in three sites (Stanmore Bay, East Coast Bays and Moana-Nui-a-Kiwa) in June and July 2017. Albany Stadium Pool opened in February with the same membership categories. These sites represent a diverse range of customers, services and functions. This allowed Active Recreation to test the membership model across a range of local communities, functions and facilities.

24. Feedback from new members who signed up during the pilot period was overwhelmingly positive (e.g. over 90% opted for the “Get Into It” full access bronze membership at Moana-Nui-a-Kiwa).

25. All three pilot centres experienced similar benefit from the new membership structure and have continued with the new membership offering past the end of the period. This has allowed Active Recreation to continue to evaluate the new membership model against the existing membership offering in other centres.

26. Results remain positive. Sales have increased in all pilot centres and both customer and staff experience measures have improved. This is shown in the tables below.

27. New membership growth at pilot leisure centres:

Membership Totals	30 May 2016	30 May 2017	Membership Pilot Begins	30 June 2017	30 July 2017	27 Aug 2017
MNAK Total members	956	985		988	1039	1062
Get Into It members	na	0		+59	+143	+210
ECB Total members	553	571		597	590	576
Get Into It members	na	0		+83	+106	+128
Stanmore Bay Total	1784	2095		2126	2115	2148
Get Into It members	na	0		+117	+191	+260

Customer feedback on the recommended changes

28. Active Recreation performs regular customer research, using Net Promoter Score (NPS) surveys – which provide a quantitative measurement of customer satisfaction. This benchmarks the quality of our customer engagement and service standards.

29. NPS results suggest that, along with other improvements to the service and support offering, the new membership framework has been received really positively by customers.

30. Customer experience results at pilot sites:

Average NPS Scores	3 months, March to May 2017	3 months, June to Sept 2017
Pilot centres	43.6	48.7
Auckland Council Pools & Leisure	28.9	27.4

31. The survey also enquires about the key attributes that customers valued. The top attributes across the pilot sites are:

1. programme suitability.

2. good instructors/teachers.

3. friendliness.

4. value for money.

These are all benefits associated with the new membership services, which reinforces the positive feedback received from staff and through customer interactions.

Inclusion of contracted pools and leisure centres

32. These new membership options will only apply to council operated facilities at this time, with one exception. Staff have an agreement in principle with Community Leisure Management (CLM), one of our three contracted operators, that Auckland Council membership will also include Otahuhu Pool and Leisure Centre (Toia) as a bronze centre.

Impact on existing members of the recommended changes

33. One of the key principles of the change process is that existing members, particularly concession holders, are not disadvantaged by the changes. All current membership types will either be continued for active members and access will not change, or the current membership will be matched to an equivalent new membership (and any cost difference discounted). If the new cost is lower in price, existing members will pay the lesser amount. New members will sign up to one of the new membership types at the new prices.

34. Active Recreation are confident that the new Get Active Your Way membership model, coupled with improvements to the service offering and a more integrated network of pools and leisure centres will provide Auckland residents with better access to quality facilities, expert staff and engaging recreation opportunities.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

35. Hibiscus and Bays and Mangere-Otahuhu local boards were notified before piloting and updated in July, in workshops after the pilot.

36. The new membership structure and prices were presented and discussed in a workshop to the Henderson-Massey Local Board on 7 November 2017.

37. The Howick, Mangere-Otahuhu and Otara-Papatoetoe local boards have approved the new membership prices.

38. To date, this has also been presented in workshops to Devonport-Takapuna, Hibiscus and Bays, Manurewa, Orakei, Upper Harbour and Waitemata local boards. They have all expressed their support for the new membership model and reports have been submitted for their approval.

39. The pools and leisure network is a regional asset-based service, so the recommendation carries no financial risk to the local board.

Māori impact statement

40. The Active Recreation Game Plan and the membership model have been presented to the Northwest Iwi hui. The Iwi representatives were very supportive of these initiatives.

41. Recreation, leisure and aquatics programmes, provided for local communities through pools, leisure centres and recreation teams, contribute to improving wellbeing among Māori communities. Some programmes, such as free swimming for under 16s, are intended to benefit local Māori as a targeted population.

Implementation

42. The membership model and changes to access are being presented to local boards for approval from September through November. Meanwhile the Active Recreation support team are developing and delivering staff training to support the new membership structure and customer activation process. Communications for existing members and marketing materials for the new memberships are being created. Active Recreation is aiming, with local board approval, to introduce these membership options in November.

43.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Garth Dawson - Leisure Business Manager

Authorisers

Rob McGee - Manager Leisure – Parks, Sports and Recreation

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

21 November 2017

Remuneration Authority consultation document

File No.: CP2017/23158

Purpose

1. To provide comments on the Remuneration Authority’s Consultation Document “Local Government Review” by 15 December 2017.

Executive summary

2. The Remuneration Authority is consulting local authorities on proposals in its consultation document “Local Government Review”. Feedback is due by Friday 15 December 2017. The Remuneration Authority wants to discuss the proposals with Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) zone meetings.

3. The Authority has noted that they are seeking the views of councils, not individual elected members or staff. All local boards are being provided the opportunity to respond as is the governing body.

4. The Authority proposes the following long-term changes to the way in which remuneration is decided:

(i) each council is sized according to proposed factors such as population

(ii) a remuneration pool for the council is determined based on the size

(iii) the mayor’s salary is determined by the Authority

(iv) the council then proposes how to allocate the total pool (after the mayor’s salary is deducted) among elected members to recognise positions of responsibility

(v) there is relativity between mayors and MPs, with the Auckland mayor being paid no more than a cabinet minister.

5. The consultation document sets out the proposals and asks for feedback in regard to specific questions.

6. The proposals do not impact on expenses policies or meeting fees for resource management hearings.

7. The body of this report summarises the content of each section of the document and quotes the questions. Comments from staff highlight issues the local board might wish to consider. The document is in Attachment A and provides the full details of the proposals.

8. The proposal to provide each council with a remuneration pool gives councils more flexibility to recognise varying responsibilities among members, but it puts elected members in the position of making decisions about their own salaries.

9. The consultation document does not discuss local boards. In other councils, community board salaries would be funded from the council pool, unless they were funded by a targeted rate. Local boards are very different from community boards and local boards should make their comments in the context of their role and responsibilities within Auckland Council. Local boards may wish to comment on how, if the remuneration pool concept proceeds, the remuneration of local boards should be decided.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) provide its comments on the Remuneration Authority’s Consultation Document Local Government Review.

10. The Remuneration Authority has circulated a discussion document with a request for comments by 15 December 2017. This is appended in Attachment A. The Authority states that a separate consultation document will be circulated for Auckland Council but that the principles in the current document will apply to Auckland Council.

11. The Authority has noted that they are seeking the views of councils, not individual elected members or staff. All local boards are being provided the opportunity to respond as is the governing body.

12. Currently, the key aspects for setting remuneration for councils other than Auckland are:

(i) a size index for each council based on population and expenditure

(ii) job-sizing council positions in sample councils

(iii) assessing the portion of full-time work

(iv) the Authority’s pay scale

(v) a pool equivalent to one member’s salary for recognising additional positions of responsibility

(vi) a loading of 12.5% for unitary councils

(vii) hourly rates for resource consent hearings.

13. The report summarises the content of each section of the discussion document and quotes the questions. Comments from staff highlight issues the local board might wish to consider. The document is in Attachment A and provides the full details of the proposals.

Council size

14. The discussion document defines council size as “the accumulated demands on any council resulting from its accountability for its unique mix of functions, obligations, assets and citizenry”. It proposes a number of measures on which to base council size such as:

(i) population

(ii) operational expenditure

(iii) asset size

(iv) social deprivation

(v) guest nights.

15. For regional councils, social deprivation would not be used to assess size, but land area would be.

16. For unitary councils, land area would be added to all other factors in order to recognise regional responsibilities. The previous 12.5% loading would not apply.

17. Detailed explanations about why these factors were chosen are in the discussion document.

18. Remuneration Authority questions on sizing factors:

With regard to the proposed factors to be used for sizing councils

· Are there significant influences on council size that are not recognised by the factors identified?

· Are there any factors that we have identified that you believe should not be used and why?

· When measuring council assets, do you support the inclusion of all council assets, including those commercial companies that are operated by boards?

· If not, how should the Authority distinguish between different classes of assets?

19. Comments:

(i) It is noted that prior to 2013, the Authority took population growth into account. The councils experiencing higher growth might be expected to be faced with more complex issues to resolve than councils with stagnant growth.

(ii) In a review conducted in 2012, the Authority stated:

The adjustment for ‘abnormal population growth’ has been discontinued, because it is felt that such growth will be reflected in a council’s expenses

Weighting

20. The discussion document proposes weighting the factors slightly differently for different types of council.

Territorial authorities:

Population, operational expenditure

Assets

Deprivation index, visitor nights

Regional councils:

Operational expenditure, geographic size

Assets, population

Visitor nights

Unitary authorities:

Population, operational expenditure, geographic size

Assets

Deprivation index; visitor nights

21. Remuneration Authority questions on weighting:

· Are you aware of evidence that would support or challenge the relativity of the factors for each type of council?

· If you believe other factors should be taken into account, where would they sit relative to others?

22. Comments:

(i) Staff do not see any issues with this proposal.

Mayoral remuneration

23. Mayors are considered to be full-time positions. The discussion document states that a base rate would be determined and additional amounts would be based on the size of the council as assessed above. The Remuneration Authority would set the mayor’s salary.

24. Remuneration Authority questions on Mayoral remuneration:

· Should mayor/chair roles should be treated as full time?

· If not, how should they be treated?

· Should there be a “base” remuneration level for all mayors/chairs, with additional remuneration added according to the size of the council?

· If so, what should determine this “base remuneration”?

25. Comments:

(i) For Auckland Council, the roles of the mayor, councillors and local board chairs have all been treated as full-time. There has been no diminution in role responsibilities since that was determined. There is no rationale for change.

Councillor remuneration

26. A total remuneration pool would be set for each council and each council would decide how to distribute the pool among elected members (after the mayoral salary has been deducted). A 75% majority vote would be required. The Remuneration Authority would receive each council’s decisions and would then make formal determinations.

27. The pool could be used to recognise additional workload arising from appointments to external bodies.

28. Remuneration Authority questions on councillor remuneration:

· Should councillor remuneration be decided by each council within the parameters of a governance/representation pool allocated to each council by the Remuneration Authority?

· If so, should each additional position of responsibility, above a base councillor role, require a formal role description?

· Should each council be required to gain a 75% majority vote to determine the allocation of remuneration across all its positions?

29. Comments:

(i) Setting a remuneration pool for an entity with the entity then responsible for deciding how it is allocated among members, is a valid remuneration practice.

(ii) One issue to consider relating to the pool proposal is that the size of the pool, once determined, is fixed. If a pool is determined for each local board, then if the number of members on a board is increased or decreased, say by a review of representation arrangements, the amount that each member is paid will decrease or increase accordingly. This issue is acknowledged in paragraphs 102 and 103 of the discussion document.

(iii) In view of this, the local board might wish to consider its view on the assumption that the governance responsibility can be represented by a fixed pool.

(iv) A further issue to consider is that elected members would need to debate how to allocate the pool. The Remuneration Authority currently fully sets Auckland Council’s elected member remuneration. Council has not had to debate how remuneration might be apportioned among governing body and local board members. This would be a major change.

(v) Staff do not see any issues with the proposals for role descriptions and a 75% majority vote.

External representation roles

30. The Authority notes that elected members are increasingly being appointed to represent councils on various outside committees and bodies.

31. Remuneration Authority questions on external representation roles:

· Should external representation roles be able to be remunerated in a similar way to council positions of responsibility?

32. Comments:

(i) There are many bodies such as trusts and co-governance entities to which Auckland Council elected members are appointed. These appointments are currently treated as part of the role of being an elected member.

(ii) If the pool proposal allows councils to recognise additional responsibilities (or workload) attached to representation on external organisations, an issue to consider is whether such recognition of additional workload might then extend to internal committee membership, including the number of committees a member is part of. The issue is how granular the recognition of responsibilities should be.

Appointments to CCOs

33. The Authority notes that some councils make appointments of elected members to CCOs.

34. Remuneration Authority questions on appointments to CCOs:

· Do the additional demands placed on CCO board members make it fair for elected members appointed to such boards to receive the same director fees as are paid to other CCO board members?

35. Comments:

(i) Auckland Council cannot legally appoint elected members to substantive CCOs, other than Auckland Transport.

(ii) In the current term, Auckland Council has not appointed elected members to Auckland Transport, but in previous terms the two appointees received directors’ fees.

Community boards

36. The discussion document includes proposals and questions regarding community boards. Auckland Council does not have community boards and we recommend this is clearly stated in any local board response.

37. Community board salaries would either come from the council pool or be separately funded by way of a targeted rate.

38. Remuneration Authority questions on community boards:

· Should community board remuneration always come out of the council governance/representation pool?

· If not, should it be funded by way of targeted rate on the community concerned?

· If not, what other transparent and fair mechanisms are there for funding the remuneration of community board members?

Local Boards

39. The discussion document does not mention local boards.

40. Most local boards are larger or similar in size to other councils in New Zealand.

41. Local boards have decision-making and governance responsibilities over $500million per annum

Comments:

Local boards should comment

(i) On the merits or otherwise of a bulk funding approach

(ii) If the Remuneration Authority does decide on a bulk funding approach

a. Should the governing body determine remuneration for each local board or

b. Should the Remuneration Authority determine separate bulk funding for the governing body and each local board.

Local government pay scale

42. The discussion document discusses how the role of elected members might compare to other roles and other entities for the purposes of setting a pay scale. It considers local government managers, central government managers and boards of directors. These are not elected member roles.

43. The document then considers parliamentary elected member salaries for comparison.

44. Remuneration Authority questions on local government pay scale:

· Is it appropriate for local government remuneration to be related to parliamentary remuneration, but taking account of differences in job sizes?

· If so, should that the relativity be capped so the incumbent in the biggest role in local government cannot receive more than a cabinet minister?

· If not, how should a local government pay scale be determined?

45. Comments:

(i) The Authority suggests in the document that mayor/chair salaries are related to MPs. The question refers to the “biggest role in local government” which would be the Auckland mayor. By setting the salary of the Auckland mayor to that of a cabinet minister, other mayors would be scaled accordingly.

Timetable

46. A determination setting councils’ remuneration pools will be made around 1 July in each election year. Following the elections, each council is to resolve its remuneration policy on the allocation of the pool for the triennium. In the years between elections, adjustments will be made based on published “Labour Market Statistics”.

Conclusion

47. These proposals constitute a major change for Auckland Council. From its inception, the salaries of Auckland Council elected members have been fully determined by the Remuneration Authority.

48. The remuneration pool proposal provides councils with more flexibility to recognise varying responsibilities among members, but this puts elected members in the position of making decisions about their own salaries.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

49. This report seeks the local boards’ views on the proposals contained in the Remuneration Authority’s discussion document. Local board views will be reported individually to the Remuneration Authority.

Māori impact statement

50. The level at which elected members are remunerated does not impact differently on Māori as compared with the wider community.

Implementation

51. Feedback from the local board will be communicated to the Remuneration Authority.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A Local Government Remuneration Review	189

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

21 November 2017

Input to the Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services

File No.: CP2017/23839

Purpose

1. To seek local board feedback on the draft options for supporting the future provision of Citizens Advice Bureaux services to Auckland’s communities.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council is reviewing Citizens Advice Bureaux services in Auckland following a resolution by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in April 2016.

3. The review will determine the appropriate level of Auckland Council support for Citizens Advice Bureaux services from 2018/2019 onwards.

4. Thirty-one Citizens Advice Bureaux operate in the Auckland region.

5. Auckland Council fund Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated $1.839 million a year which then distributes the funds to bureaux.

6. Local boards have provided input to the review on the local relationships, services and funding. Staff have developed draft options to address the issues and opportunities raised. The options are in the table below:

Option 1: Enhanced status quo	Enhancements are a refined funding model, reporting improvements and strengthened local relationships
Option 2: Locally driven	Transfers responsibility for existing budget to local boards
Option 3: Regional service provision	Collective review of funding levels and number and location of service sites

7. Staff consider Option 3 to be the best option to achieve consistent regional service delivery. If CABx and CABNZ do not agree with Option 3, then Option 1 provides for greater consistency of service delivery than Option 2.

8. Staff will incorporate feedback from local boards on the draft options in to the review findings to be reported to the Environment and Community Committee in early 2018.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the draft options for supporting the future provision of Citizens Advice Bureaux services to Auckland’s communities by 1 December 2017.

Comments

Background

9. On 7 April 2016 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee resolved to:

“seek information from staff regarding a review of the service after consultation with the 21 local boards on the issues raised by the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board regarding Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated (ACABx) funding, to achieve greater equity and fairness, taking into consideration social issues in local communities across Auckland.” (REG/2016/22)

10. The review scope includes:

· alignment to council policy, strategic priorities, local board plans and policies

· equitable service provision – Aucklanders having access to the services they need across the region, responding to growth and change in Auckland’s communities

· equity of funding for bureaux across Auckland – the basis for how funding is distributed

· how Auckland Council interacts and engages with bureaux across Auckland

· communicating the impact and value of Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) services

· council’s governance needs and role with regard to reporting and accountability.

11. Since 2013 Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated (ACABx), a board made up of representatives from across Auckland bureaux, has been distributing the council funding to bureaux using a population-based funding model which replaced previous funding arrangements by legacy councils.

12. ACABx received $1.839 million for 2017/2018, which includes an annual inflation provision. This expenditure is included in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

13. Some local boards provide funding to their local bureaux in addition to the core funding allocated through ACABx. Local boards provide support to CAB through accommodation as the majority of bureaux are located in council facilities.

14. ACABx distributes funds to local CAB so that communities are provided with access to information, advice, referral and client advocacy services.

Current Auckland CAB services and alignment with local board plans and council strategies

15. Currently there are 31 Auckland CAB sites in 18 local board areas, with over 900 trained volunteers fielding approximately 300,000 enquiries per annum; 75% of the service is delivered face-to-face.

16. Support for CAB services aligns with the following:

· local board plan outcomes, such as connected communities, employment and housing

· Auckland Plan (strategic direction one): to create a strong, inclusive and equitable society that ensures opportunity for all Aucklanders

· Empowered Communities Approach, where individuals, whānau and communities have the power and ability to influence decisions.

17. The first annual review of the Auckland Council-ACABx Strategic Relationship Agreement (2016-2018) noted the following achievements and issues:

· agreed relationship principles, established a governing group and secured CAB New Zealand (CABNZ) involvement to support the relationship

· work is still in progress to improve measurement and the CAB reporting model

· both parties acknowledged that the current arrangements limit the collective ability to achieve regional level change, including closure, rationalisation or new sites and influencing local service provision

· currently ACABx will not address the overall number and location of service sites operated by member bureaux, which is based on legacy council models. They will not consider opening new sites unless there is an increase in the overall funding envelope. Based on current information shared by CAB it is difficult to determine the value of the service in order for the council to review its funding commitment.

The review of CAB Services in Auckland

18. Local boards provided input to the review during July and August 2017. A comprehensive information pack was provided to resource and support their input. The full summary of local board input is provided in Attachment A.

19. Feedback from boards highlighted what is working well:

· Most boards consider the services are of high value to the community.

· Leverage of council funding as services are delivered by well trained, approachable, multi-lingual and knowledgeable volunteers.

· Connecting people with information and services otherwise out of reach, especially for migrants, older people, international students and lower socioeconomic groups.

20. The review has identified a number of issues, including:

· Inequity in funding of bureaux and service provision across the region – service needs to be responsive to growth and community need.

· The need for better connections between local boards and bureaux to support improved two-way communication.

· The need for bureau data and information on trends and emerging issues at regional and site level.

· Future service sustainability, including awareness of service and better outreach to targeted groups that currently are under-represented as users (e.g. Māori, some migrant groups, young people, rural communities).

21. Some local boards have raised deprivation as a factor that should be taken into account in allocating funding to bureaux. These boards consider that areas of high deprivation should get more funding as there is increased and more complex need. Further investigation is needed and staff are seeking evidence from CAB on what they deliver and from which sites, and where their clients live before deprivation can be considered within the funding model.

Draft options for feedback

22. Three draft options have been developed that respond to the issues and opportunities raised by local boards and the review of the Strategic Relationship Agreement.

Table 1: Review of CAB services: Draft options

Option

Description

Pros

Cons

Implementation

Option 1: Enhanced status quo

· Overall funding envelope unchanged

· Governing Body remains the decision maker for funding

· Council has funding agreement with ACABx

· The funding agreement includes:

- A review of the population-based funding model with up-to-date local board population estimates, current CAB sites and exploring the use of deprivation as a proxy for need

- Improved reporting with consistent trend information at regional and site level

- A local relationship framework developed to support strengthened and more strategic relationships between local boards and bureaux

· Valued community service is maintained

· Continued contribution to regional strategies and improved contribution to local board plan outcomes

· Updated funding model to include some aspects of need, including population growth and potentially deprivation

· Improved reporting on the use and value of the service regionally and locally (who is using the service, why and where)

· Community intelligence is shared to support local decision making and advocacy

· Efficient bulk funding model because Governing Body would allocate bulk funding to ACABx to distribute to the bureaux

· No change to the fixed funding envelope

· Does not address the overall number and location of service sites or opening of new sites in high growth areas

· No strategic approach to the region’s service needs

· Does not address that some local boards are providing additional funding for bureau services from LDI budgets

· Does not address the CAB as a largely passive service with limited resources to undertake outreach to vulnerable groups that are currently underrepresented as users

· Does not address responsiveness of the service to changing demographics and evolving community needs

· Could be implemented for 2018/2019 with a two-year funding agreement (July 2018 - June 2020)

· This is the most achievable of the options

Option 2: Locally driven

· CAB operates as a local service rather than a regional service

· Governing Body transfers responsibility for existing budget to local boards. Locally driven initiatives (LDI) budgets adjusted accordingly

· It would be up to each local board to decide if local bureaux are funded and to what level. From the bureaux perspective, their funding agreement would be with Auckland Council instead of ACABx

· Local boards govern the relationship with bureaux

· The funding agreement includes:

- Meeting local board priorities

- Improved reporting and local relationship framework as under Option 1

· Opportunity to strengthen alignment of bureaux services with local board plan outcomes and with other local community services

· Local boards and bureaux work together to respond to growth and local changes

· Council funding of the service can be more responsive to local need, e.g. seek rationalisation of bureau sites at a local or cluster level, outreach to vulnerable groups that are currently underrepresented as users

· Boards can direct funding to providers best placed to serve the local community

· Improved reporting on the use and value of the service regionally and locally (who is using the service, why and where)

· Community intelligence is shared to support local decision making and advocacy

· The fixed funding envelope constrains the ability to open new sites

· No strategic approach to the region’s service needs

· Significantly higher administrative burden on CAB which will need to seek local board support for funding arrangements

· Would require increased dedicated resource from council (Community Empowerment Unit) to administer multiple funding agreements and accountability reports

· Could be implemented for 2018/2019

· Funding could be ring fenced for the 2018/2019 during phased implementation

· From 2019-2021, local boards could fund on an annual or multi-year basis and could also fund on a local board cluster basis

· This option is achievable but would require significant change for bureaux and local boards

Option 3: Regional service provision

· Assessment undertaken to understand the value of the service which would also determine the appropriate level of Auckland Council support required

· This option requires active participation from CABNZ and Auckland bureaux

· Regional Network Provision Framework developed by council, CABNZ and bureaux that reviews the location of bureau sites across the region to address service gaps and opportunities around accommodation

· Could also include potential for a single CAB entity for whole of Auckland with a mandate to develop the service regionally – requires major constitutional change for bureaux

· Comprehensive review of the CAB service going forward and role for Auckland Council in supporting the service

· Only option that allows for a review of the level of council funding for the service

· Strengthened contribution to regional strategies and local board plan outcomes

· Only option that would be able to comprehensively address the overall number and location of service sites, including new sites

· Strategic approach to the region’s service needs and addresses responsiveness of local service delivery

· Requires significant commitment and change from a volunteer-based organisation

· Relies on substantial council involvement and increased dedicated resource

· The new approach would be developed during 2018/19 and implemented in 2019/2020

· Enhanced status quo would apply in 2018/2019

· This option is the most difficult to achieve and would require long term commitment from all parties and council resourcing to implement

23. Overall Option 3: Regional service provision provides the most likelihood of achieving regional consistency of service delivery to meet changing community need and for this reason staff consider this to be the best option. However, without the agreement of the CABx and CABNZ Option 3 is not achievable. Discussions between council staff, the ACABx board and CABNZ are still ongoing.

24. If Option 3 is not achievable Option 1: Enhanced status quo will provide for greater consistency of service delivery than Option 2: Locally driven.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

25. Local boards have detailed knowledge of both local bureau delivery and of their local communities’ needs. Boards have provided input to the review on their relationship with the local bureau, services and funding, indicating that for most boards there is good alignment of the CAB services with local board plan outcomes.

26. Staff have developed draft options that respond to the issues and opportunities raised by local boards and are seeking feedback on these options.

27. Under Option 1 (Enhanced status quo) the funding model is reviewed and an improved local relationship framework would be available to support reporting and discussions between boards and bureaux. Under Option 2 (Locally driven), boards would take on responsibility for funding local bureaux. Under Option 3 (Regional service provision) a fuller assessment would be undertaken with board involvement to determine a new approach for future CAB service provision across the region.

Māori impact statement

28. For 2016/2017, Māori users of CAB services comprised between 2.5% of users in the central Auckland/Waiheke cluster to 13.2% in south/east Auckland cluster (Source: ACABx Accountability Report to Auckland Council July 2016-June 2017).

29. Options 2 and 3 are more likely to improve Māori engagement with CAB services as they would support more responsive local service provision.

Implementation

30. Staff request local boards provide feedback on the draft options by 1 December 2017. Staff will incorporate this feedback in to the review findings which will be reported to the Environment and Community Committee in early 2018.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of local board input July - August 2017	225

Signatories

Authors

Carole Blacklock - Specialist Advisor - Partnering and Social Investment, Community Empowerment Unit, Arts, Community a

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

21 November 2017

Henderson-Massey Local Board

21 November 2017

Review of representation arrangements - process

File No.: CP2017/24262

Purpose

1. To provide comments to the Governing Body on the proposed process (in Attachment B to the agenda report) for the review of representation arrangements.

Executive summary

2. All local authorities are required by the Local Electoral Act 2001 to undertake a review of representation arrangements at least once every six years in order to determine them arrangements for the following elections.

3. Auckland Council was established in 2010 and was not required to undertake a review of representation arrangements for the 2016 elections, but is required to undertake a review for the 2019 elections. The review will take place during 2018.

4. It is possible to review the following for the Governing Body:

i. Whether members are elected at-large or by ward or a combination

ii. If elected by ward, the number of members in each ward, the ward boundaries and ward names.

5. It is possible to review the following for each local board:

i. The number of members

ii. Whether local board members are to be elected by subdivision or at large

iii. If by subdivision, the number of members in each subdivision and the subdivision boundaries and names

iv. The local board name.

6. It is not possible to review the number of governing body members. This is set in the Auckland Council legislation. Other councils are able to review the number of members.

7. It is also not possible to review the boundaries, or number, of local boards. A reorganisation process is required to do this. This is a separate process under the legislation.

8. With a governing body and 21 local boards, Auckland Council has more complex arrangements than other councils and an efficient and effective process for undertaking the review needs to be determined.

9. The report attached as Attachment A was considered by the Governing Body on 28 September 2017. The report sets out the background and context to the review and a proposed process for conducting the review.

10. The Governing Body resolved a proposed process on 28 September 2017, as set out in Attachment B, and is now seeking the views of local boards on this process.

11. In December the Governing Body will resolve the final process for conducting the review, following feedback from local boards on the proposed process.

12. This report seeks the local boards’ views on the proposed process as set out in Attachment B, for conducting the review of representation arrangements.

13. Representation by way of establishing one or more Māori wards is being considered separately by the Governing Body. There is not a similar provision for Māori seats on local boards.

14. Feedback from the local board will be communicated to the Governing Body 14 December 2017 meeting.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) provide its comments on the proposed process for conducting the review of representation arrangements.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Process to conduct a review of representation arrangements – report to Governing Body meeting on 28 September 2017	287
b ⇩	Process to conduct a review of representation arrangements – resolution of Governing Body	295

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Phil Wilson – Governance Director

Carol McKenzie-Rex – General Manager Local Board Services Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

21 November 2017

Confirmation of Workshop Records

File No.: CP2017/24234

Purpose

1. This report presents records of workshops held by the Henderson-Massey Local Board on:

· 3 October 2017

· 10 October 2017

· 17 October 2017

· 24 October 2017

· 31 October 2017

Executive Summary

2. At the workshop held on Tuesday, 3 October, the Henderson-Massey Local Board had briefings on:

· Local Grants, Round One 2017/2018

· Workshop 1 Local Board Agreement (LTP) planning process

· Riverpark Reserve Playground Upgrade funding discussion

3. At the workshop held on Tuesday, 10 October 2017, the Henderson-Massey Local Board had a briefing on:

· Follow up of Ka Eke Poutama

· Development of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018

· Waka Ama site investment mapping workshop

4. At the workshop held on Tuesday, 17 October 2017, the Henderson-Massey Local Board had briefings on:

· Te Atatu Business Association - Annual report and alignment discussion with Henderson-Massey Local Board.

· Panuku Updates

· Waitakere Ethnic Board

· SH16/18 Connections project

· Meet Brooke Stilwell

5. At the workshop held on Tuesday, 24 October 2017, the Henderson-Massey Local Board had briefings on:

· Workshop 2 Local Board Agreement and LTP planning process

· ADCT Feasibility Report Completion

· Community Led Response to the Kelston Flood event

6. At the workshop held on Tuesday, 24 October 2017, the Henderson-Massey Local Board had briefings on:

· Wai Ora – Healthy Waterways Programme

· Maori Economic Development work (ATEED)

· Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux Services – future options

· Remuneration Authority Consultation document

· Road naming process

7. The workshop records are attached to this report.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) receive the workshop records held on:

· 3 October 2017

· 10 October 2017

· 17 October 2017

· 24 October 2017

· 31 October 2017

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Henderson-Massey local board - October 2017 Workshop records	299

Signatories

Authors	Busola Martins - Local Board Democracy Advisor (West)
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

21 November 2017

Governance Forward Work Calendar

File No.: CP2017/24235

Purpose

1. To present to the Henderson-Massey Local Board with their most current governance forward work calendar.

Executive Summary

2. This report introduces the governance forward work calendar: a schedule of items that will come before the board at business meetings over the upcoming months. The governance forward work calendar for the board is included in Attachment A.

3. The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:

· ensuring advice on agendas and workshop material is driven by local board priorities

· clarifying what advice is required and when

· clarifying the rationale for reports.

4. The calendar will be updated every month. Each update will be reported back to business meetings and distributed to relevant Council staff. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) note the updated Governance Forward Work Calendar for November 2017 (attachment A).

Comments

5. Council’s Quality Advice Programme aims to improve the focus, analysis, presentation and timeliness of staff advice to elected representatives. An initiative under this is to develop forward work calendars for governing body committees and local boards. These provide elected members with better visibility of the types of governance tasks they are being asked to undertake and when they are scheduled.

6. Although the document is new, there are no new projects in the governance forward work calendar. The calendar brings together in one schedule reporting on all of the board’s projects and activities previously approved in the local board plan, long-term plan, departmental work programmes and through other board decisions. It includes governing body policies and initiatives that call for a local board response.

7. This initiative is intended to support the boards’ governance role. It will also help staff to support local boards, as an additional tool to manage workloads and track activities across council departments, and it will allow greater transparency for the public.

8. The calendar is arranged in three columns, “Topic”, “Purpose” and “Governance Role”:

· Topic describes the items and may indicate how they fit in with broader processes such as the annual plan

· Purpose indicates the aim of the item, such as formally approving plans or projects, hearing submissions or receiving progress updates

· Governance role is a higher-level categorisation of the work local boards do. Examples of the seven governance categories are tabled on the following page.

Governance role	Examples
Setting direction/priorities/budget	Capex projects, work programmes, annual plan
Local initiatives/specific decisions	Grants, road names, alcohol bans
Input into regional decision-making	Comments on regional bylaws, policies, plans
Oversight and monitoring	Local board agreement, quarterly performance reports, review projects
Accountability to the public	Annual report
Engagement	Community hui, submissions processes
Keeping informed	Briefings, cluster workshops

9. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar. The calendar will be updated and reported back every month to business meetings. Updates will also be distributed to relevant Council staff.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. All local boards are being presented with governance forward work calendars for their consideration.

Māori impact statement

11. The projects and processes referred to in the governance forward work calendar will have a range of implications for Māori which will be considered when the work is reported.

Implementation

12. Staff will review the calendar each month in consultation with board members and will report an updated calendar to the board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Governance forward work programme - November 2017	311

Signatories

Authors	Busola Martins - Local Board Democracy Advisor (West)
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Proposed milestones (key milestones in grey)	Estimated completion
Initiate key stakeholder and general community engagement	Start late Nov / Dec 17
Recruit community reference group	Dec 17/ Jan 18
2x community reference group workshops	Jan / Feb 18
LB workshop – draft master plan	Mar 18
Draft master plan document for public consultation	Mar 18
Consultation on draft master plan completed	Late Apr 18
Feedback analysed and recommendations made on changes	May 18
Community reference group workshop – consider feedback and test amendments	Late May 18
LB workshop - feedback and proposed changes to draft master plan	Early Jun 18
Draft master plan amended	Mid Jun 18
LB business meeting - endorsed final master plan	Jun 18
Final master plan handed over to business owner	Jul 18

Chairperson	Shane Henderson
Deputy Chairperson	Peter Chan, JP
Members	Paula Bold-Wilson
	Brenda Brady, JP
	Warren Flaunty, QSM
	Will Flavell
	Matt Grey
	Vanessa Neeson, JP